Computers are so cheap now that if you need to upgrade, you can easily buy the entire thing. Case in point: I bought the iMac G5 in Sep. 2004, then a Core2Duo iMac in Sep. 2006. After selling the iMac G5 for $1,000, the difference I paid for the upgrade was $700 (cuz I have Edu discount). So for $700 I was able to upgrade the entire innards of the computer (CPU, MB, GPU, HDD, but same 20in monitor). Try to do something like that by buying the parts separately.

How did you get someone to pay that much for an iMac G5 when a new dual core iMac can be had for $200 more? Refurbished ones start at $850 right now, and that includes a warranty.

Actually, your forgot to add in the fact you need to purchase another copy of the "New and improved Windows" and also another Pee Cee to run it on because your old one that you just bought won't run it.

I find myself having to agree with those saying that Apple doesn't have a decent Desktop. The iMac and the Mac Mini both seem to cater toward the low-end users, while the Mac Pro caters toward the pro-users.

-Clive

I tried the new iMac in a store at the weekend. Compared to my dual 1.8 G5 Powermac - which, let's face it, isn't that old ? it was blisteringly fast.

How did you get someone to pay that much for an iMac G5 when a new dual core iMac can be had for $200 more?

I'm pretty sure that back in 2006, the cheapest 20 incher was still something like $1499. Plus I did have extra RAM in there so my calculation might be slightly off. Actually, I don't even remember what I paid for mine ;-)

I'm glad it won't be 24 month in between OS releases. I think it's obvious Microsoft can't keep up with the times using its release schedule. Having an OS release every 12-18 months keeps the momentum going and doesn't really allow consumers to "get comfortable" with the OS like they did with Windows XP.

So by my very rough calculations, by early 2010 I'll have shelled out 387 bucks to keep up to date with my Apple OS, compared to 250 to stay "current" with Vista.

I'm beginning to understand how this marketing thing works.

Good luck running the next MS OS on anything being sold today. A 3 year old PC is better used as a doorstop unless you put the same amount of $ into it as buying a new one. Conversely, I'm running OS X 10.4.10 on an 8 year old iBook with no problems.

And futhermore, all OS X major upgrades are definitely Major, not pitiful attempts to get more money. They sell because they're good, period. And you can be happy without the upgrade if you want, because Apple will continue to support the older OS too.

I don't know. That seems to be wonky to me. The more capable the OS is, the more features you need to add to have people upgrade.

I don't see Apple adding much of substantial value in 12 months.

Remember, the OS is much more complex now. It takes more work in more areas to make serious upgrades.

If they have a release 12 months from now that implements both ZFS and RI as the big additions, people will be rightfully pissed.

RI was pretty much promised for 10.5, so wouldn't count as a major 10.6 feature. ZFS is almost here now, and so also wouldn't count for that.

It wouldn't surprise me if they tried. If you look at the "new features" page, I think Apple counts the fact that Leopard can read FAT 32 as a new feature.

Quote:

What other major features could they add in that short time that we don't already know about, to make another investment in such a short time seem worthwhile to most people?

Personally, I think OS X is very mature as it is. If you had 10.2, then 10.3 was very well worth it. I don't think there's as apparent of a difference from 10.3 to 10.4. 10.5 is a bigger change, though I'm not jumping, at least in the short term.

Add to that the fact that Leopard took about two and a half years, about 30 months. And they want to cut that in half? Tiger take about 24 months, and that really didn't feel that significant, it was mostly a lot of tiny little tweaks, most of them I can easily live without if I had to.

I agree that the update cycle isn't going to be 12mo., but definitely closer to 18mo if not more like 24mo. And I think that's fine. But if they decide to do 150 new features every 12 months, then that' also OK. I'll probably just buy every other release.

That's the difference between OSX and Windows. With windows you HAVE to wait 7 years before any substantial upgrade. With OSX, you have the choice of upgrading or not.

Booga is quite right, having 1/3 of your computers sold being desktops, whilst the market as a whole is 1/2 desktops, is not something to be proud of. All it does is highlight the fact that you are failing to deliver desktops that people actually want to buy.

Clive, aren't you the guy that is running a 6-year-old 800MHz G4 iMac and a PC that you bought a few years ago. As such, your opinion is based on what? Certainly, not by experience.

Yes, I own an 800MHz G4 iMac... but taking a look at Apple's product line at the time sheds light on that decision. There was the G3 iBook, G4 iMac, PowerBook G4 and PowerMac G4. The high-end iMac was just a step behind the low-end PowerMac, and it was equally powered as the PBG4, only much cheaper. It WAS a prosumer desktop and it was affordable! Today, Apple doesn't even put desktop-class processors in the iMac. Just laptop ones. If I'm going to buy a computer only capable of laptop speeds, it may as well be mobile, hence MBP.

As for the PC Laptop, it was a cheap-old wreck I got for the sole purpose of writing and surfing the internet on-the-go, *maybe* some casual games, but it can't handle too much. I also have a home-built PC for the sake of having a capable Windows box for whatever purpose, be it games, or otherwise.

In light of the Intel Transition and bootcamp, however, my need for a PC desktop decreases, and my need for a capable, upgradable Mac increases. If you can't tell, I like to use my Macs for a long time. I would rather NOT buy a monitor I don't need, and I've learned from my iMac NOT to purchase a computer than can't be upgraded, especially a computer that I expect to run well for more than 4 years. By cutting out the monitor of iMac, replacing the CPU with the desktop-variant (non Xeon) and giving it a little space inside for upgrades (an extra HDD bay, optical drive bay, empty RAM slots, and user-replaceable GPU), Apple can create a VERY decent computer ranging between $1400 and $2200. Yes it intersects the iMac price range but fills the HUGE gap in performance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by auxio

I just don't understand how the 2GHz Mac Mini (or the iMac) is underpowered for the average user?

It isn't, for the average user. For the average user, the iMac is plenty powerful. It's for people who do a bit of everything, where the iMac fails. Read on...

Quote:

Originally Posted by auxio

ok, so the onboard graphics in the Mini won't support the latest 3D games. If you're a gamer, you're not looking at a Mac anyways.

Not true. In fact, the reason for this is most-likely a lack of a gamer-friendly unit. As you said, the graphics on the mini are basically non-existant, and I don't care what anybody says, but the iMac's GPU will barely hobble through new games two years from now... and when that happens, good luck upgrading the graphics card... because you can't. Therefore the only solution for a would-be gamer is the Mac Pro... and with a minimum $2500 investment, that's not happening.

A mid-range tower that'll dual-boot Windows, yet have a user-replaceable GPU is the perfect solution... however, it does not exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by auxio

You do video editing you say? ok, then get a Mac Pro if you're doing it seriously. If you're just a hobbyist, then the Mini or the iMac still work very well.

My wife does professional graphic design on her Mini and has no problems.

Heck, the latest Mini has the same specs as my 1st gen MBP which I do serious software development on (aside from the fact that I've upgraded to 2GB of RAM).

I just have a hard time coming up with a use-case where the new Minis/iMacs fail to be powerful enough, and a higher performance model is required for the average consumer.

There are instances where I FCPe, Logic Audio, Garage Band and sound-edit simultaneously... not to mention the applications I keep running at all times, like AIM, iTunes, Mail and Safari. In recent years my iMac can't do that anymore (especially Garage Band... yikes). A new iMac today would be able to handle all that, yes... but then the same argument arises as for the graphics. With the constantly advancing software, will the current iMac succeed at smoothly doing all these things at once? Or what if, in a year, I want to install a Blu-Ray drive? I wouldn't be able to in an iMac.

The iMacs of today are capable machines, I'm sure, for todays common tasks. But I want a computer that will succeed at today's tasks, tomorrow's tasks, and so on for four years... at which point I can upgrade for a couple hundred bucks and get a few more years out of it still.

[QUOTE=JeffDM;1161262]It wouldn't surprise me if they tried. If you look at the "new features" page, I think Apple counts the fact that Leopard can read FAT 32 as a new feature.[quote]

Well, that would be a very minor feature. Possibly a thousand people might uograde for that one.

Quote:

Personally, I think OS X is very mature as it is. If you had 10.2, then 10.3 was very well worth it. I don't think there's as apparent of a difference from 10.3 to 10.4. 10.5 is a bigger change, though I'm not jumping, at least in the short term.

Add to that the fact that Leopard took about two and a half years, about 30 months. And they want to cut that in half? Tiger take about 24 months, and that really didn't feel that significant, it was mostly a lot of tiny little tweaks, most of them I can easily live without if I had to.

Booga is quite right, having 1/3 of your computers sold being desktops, whilst the market as a whole is 1/2 desktops, is not something to be proud of. All it does is highlight the fact that you are failing to deliver desktops that people actually want to buy.

Thanks for understanding my point-- If Apple's desktops were better, they'd sell more of them! (Duh.) The fact that they have a much higher percentage of laptops than the industry average just means they don't understand what some people who buy desktops want from them.

My next Mac will either be a laptop with a docking station or a mid-range desktop with a high-end (preferrably upgradable) video card with which I can use my existing monitors. Dell, of course, would sell me exactly what I want, but it won't run MacOS X, so I'll hold out hope that Apple will start selling these machines, too. In the meantime I'll keep chugging away with my G5.

Booga is quite right, having 1/3 of your computers sold being desktops, whilst the market as a whole is 1/2 desktops, is not something to be proud of. All it does is highlight the fact that you are failing to deliver desktops that people actually want to buy.

That's certainly the glass half empty interpretation. The other interpretation is equally valid, that the laptops are so much better than other available that they pull more than their default share. Take your pick. I certainly think the laptops so outshine the competition, based on actual experience with both, that the second is far more likely. Apple identified the trend (laptops) and focussed there and are succeeding.

i bought my iMac @ 4 1/2 years ago. it's still fine for web use, ms office, and iLife [i never use garageband].

i bought it for 1800 bucks. about a year ago i got a MBP - at that time i could have sold my 3 1/2 year old iMac for about $600.

today you can get an iMac with a 20" screen for $1200.

if you need to upgrade, here's how: sell your mac on eBay and buy another.

i don't think apple can put the quality we're accustomed to into a $1000 - $1500 tower and give it any gaming performance. [i really hope they prove me wrong] mac's cost more for what you get hardware wise. anyone who thinks otherwise is looking at the ads and not the stats.